Forum:Boycott Wikia's New Style

This Forum has been archived

FANDOM's forums are a place for the community to help other members. To contact staff directly or to report bugs, please use Special:Contact.

Note: This topic has been unedited for 1078 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This has very little relation to the Oasis skin transition (new look, Wikia skin, etc.), despite what Ten Tailed Fox may have said here. Please read it thoroughly. The Monaco and Oasis transition responses from the community, while similar were of a very different nature, as was Wikia's response. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:11 PM PST 4 Oct 2010

Wondering where my last signing went... Cba to point out everything wrong with this again. --Zeal (T/C) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye. If you made it optional then we'd listen, but I guess it just goes to show you care more about cold-hearted advertisers than your users who've dedicated considerable time into making you what you are today. --Testostereich 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness I found this, I don't care if i'm 3 days late; somewhere where negative feedback can be expressed! I've never liked the Monaco style, it's messy and would only confuse new people and put them off joining. But what really annoys me is the amount of bugs i've found so far! Just look at theLord of the Rings Wiki Main Page,on my screen at least it's squashed - even after wikia staff changed the layout. In accordance with Help:Main page Column tags I made the main page actually look good, and yet a bug in the software makes the whole page break(IE error - it loads but when the ads finish loading it says the page cannot be found!)! They launched this too quickly, all bugs and problems should have been dealt with before hand; also in the last month several staff members have deleted or massively changed all of my work as admin - now activity has slowed right down, even with Spotlighting. I am very angry with Wikia at the moment and I fully support this boycott, see you in August!-- KingAragorn talk LOTR email 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the Boycott?

By request below...

Wikia needs a more concrete idea of who is displeased by the way they conducted their announcement and implementation of "Wikia's New Style". A list of boycotters gives them an easier way to see a list rather than wading through an unruly talk page and figuring out who was actually mad (even though almost all the responses were negative).

A rebut to the cliché statement: "A boycott helps no one." If that weren't true, no one would have ever done it. Economic history shows that boycotts are some of the most effective methods of influencing companies as well as their advertisers. See Boycott (at Wikipedia) for some in depth info on what I'm talking about.

Solutions

These solutions are not attached to the list of boycotters and are only proposed by me (Fandyllic).

Give at least a month longer to implement any new multi-wiki changes (the current start date is June 17). I would not start this "new style" implementation until at least mid-July.

Get a consensus that Monaco skin is ready to override older entrenched skins, especially Monobook, on all wikis. Wikia should give a pilot list of larger wikis (lets say those with 5000 or more articles; for the benefit of the advertisers) to transition immediately so they can get some feedback, but give the rest of the wikis more time (say an extra month) to transition their editors and users to Monaco-only.

Personally, I have no problem with Monaco, but I know some Monaco variants are not quite done or ready for prime-time (speaking for WoWWiki only).

Redo the "Wikia's New Style" page to be more honest. The Wikia's New Style has an outrageously misleading graphic that compares article area between various skins, but conveniently seems to exclude the area taken up by advertising and counts it as "article area." New Monaco, definitely doesn't have more article area than old Monaco with the new advertising scheme. How can ads take up a big chunk of initially visible "content area" and not reduce "article area?"

Give more ad positioning control to editors. I know this reduces the "consistency" advertisers want, but if editors could choose between a couple of high-profile areas (top banner vs. top-right square), it would allow editors to set what they think would be better information presentation. Advertisements can seriously reduce the quality of info presentation and the worse we make that, the less popular Wikia wikis will get.

Why not put ads on talk page "content area"? This wouldn't push aside helpful article info, but it may please advertisers to increase opportunities for ad impressions. Giving this additional area may allow giving back more ad positioning control to editors.

Lastly, remember Wikia owns the wikis, but not any content due to GFDL, so a determined group of editors could move their wikis to another site, especially if it uses the MediaWiki engine.

Comments

What exactly are you trying to achieve here? AdmirableAckbar 11:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I, too, would like to know the answer to that, not that you can tell me if you not editing. So because your not giving (logical) ideas on what to do, things are going to go ahead with out you, and that will be that. Clever - Kingpin13 11:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's very easy to say "I don't like this, lets boycott it" without actually helping to solve the problem... by doing this, you might actually be making the problem worse... Wikia will change anyway, they have to change. The best thing you can do is jus accept the fact that Wikia will change and think of ways to make that change easier, come up with a solution that everyone can live with... --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

People gave their suggestions and no one listened. The majority of the community objected to the changeds and they were still implemented. The page is hideous, takes too long to load, and I don't want to see 7 to 10 adds even with an account. It's absurd. Maeve 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added some proposed solutions. By the way, complaining about someone not having solutions when you don't offer any yourself is pure hypocrisy. --Fandyllic 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I did offer solutions, ideas and talked to many people about this in IRC, so please, don't think I'm just here to complain... I'm just trying to get a discussion going because I feel that's the only way we're going to get a real solution, one that everyone can live with. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A solution that everyone can live with is a myth. We need a solution that the most active and helpful contributors can live with. I don't think we're there yet. A boycott would not significantly hurt Wikia (remember, we don't pay them), but it would tell them in concrete terms that some group of editors can stand together on something. Can you think of any other way for us to show we can stand together in a simple to understand way? I can't. I haven't seen anyone consistently agree with any solution besides a longer delay. --Fandyllic 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't join the boycott for several reasons. One, I am not obsessed with making the main page fancy, so Wikia's New Style doesn't scare me. Two, I could only stop editing for a day if I had to or if I played games, but the latter can't prevent me from editing for even a few days. Three, I'm an admin on nine wikis at Wikia. Four, people get used to things. Five, as long as the ads don't generate pop-ups, I'm fine. MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My boycott is not for the weak of will. --Fandyllic 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I read the whole thing... are you a bureaucrat on any wikis? --Fandyllic 20:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I am lol'ing at whoever is going "what are you trying to achieve with this". When administrators do things that the community disagrees with and the community starts boycotting it, its really loltastic when admins go "well if you don't like it, instead of boycotting, why don't you suggest improvements." Has the thought of *not* doing things that the community disagrees with, ever occured to you. like, srsly. --anon 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon: Wikia actually needs money. Fandyllic: I'm sure there is a soultion that everyone can live with, unless your planning on comitting sucicide becuase you saw some ads somewhere. Boycotting is not a good idea, it's not going to incourage people to not do anything, rather they are not going to not notice because so many people don't want to boycott and ruin Wikia, such as myself, Ackbar, Jedimca0 and Mario, oh, and every single other person who saw links here and just couldn't be bothered to come here such as Jaymach and alot more. As Jaymach said: "If Wikia doesn't get money, then every Wikia-hosted wiki dies. So boycotting the change completely will...kill this wiki"- Kingpin13 08:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Kingpin13; Wikia needs money. The ads seem to be the only good way to get it. If Wikia does not get money, Wikia will die. If Wikia dies, every Wikia-hosted Wiki will die. Just sitting here and boycotting Wikia won't help, Wikia will change anyway and you won't have anything to say about. Unfortunately this change is needed if we want Wikia to survive, all we can do is make it easier for everyone and try to come up with a solution both we and Wikia can live with. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikia needs money, but only those with inside knowledge of the alternatives Wikia considered can know if the current proposal ("New Style") was the best proposal. If Wikia dies, their wikis will only die if they try to prevent people from migrating them. Saying otherwise is just a scare tactic and a poor one at that. I challenge anyone to come up with a solution that will please everyone. If that was possible we would all live in utopian harmony and Wikia wouldn't have to make money. So please stop suggesting some magical event will happen and a solution will be found that will please everyone. Either that or stop misusing the word "everyone". --Fandyllic 20:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on boycotting. But given how shiftily Wikia's been pulling off the transition, I do plan on mitigating the planned changed with a callous disregard for Wikia's best interests.

If they weren't such jackholes about how they presented it, I might give to shakes about that. I don't.-Derik 00:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My country needs more money, so they're going to make me pay more and more taxes: there must be a time when i get too heavily taxed and can eventually decide to waste more time fighting all day against something i can't stop, or emigrate and look for a new place where i will find myself more comfortable and less abused. The quickest and safest thing to do, when you don't like a place or a community is... to go away from it. It's much quicker and effective to rule one's own actions in freedom than it is to make revolutions of any kind. Make your choice, I made mine long ago when the V*rgin logo was spammed over Wikipedia and Mr. Jordan put his mask down. 12344321 01:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikia staff know where I stand on this matter without me shooting myself in the foot by boycotting a wiki community that I have invested countless hours in. You can't change the rules if you don't stay in the game. I suggest you use the central forum to post your constructive comments rather than taking action that will only be of detriment to your own wiki community.Najevi 04:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted my constructive comments and so have you. Tell me, how many constructive comments have they actually responded to with action? I would guess around 10% or less. They aren't even willing to be open and honest about what they're doing until is gets pried out of them. Even the helpful and informative things they say usually scroll off to the archives. --Fandyllic 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They could separate useful Wikia feedback into a protected article or make Wikia's New Style more accurate and honest, but they seem to be very choosy about how they update Wikia's New Style. That article is at least as much marketing and PR as it is info. --Fandyllic 00:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fandyllic: I'm sorry, but I am just getting really frustrated now with how petty this is getting. "Constructive" comments will only be constructive so long as it is possible for Wikia to do them and have enough money, sorry, but thats how the world works. Besides I've given you many reasons to stop boycotting it (some of which you've pointedly ignored) and here's another: If you really want action then get up and do somethings that is actively going to help. Rather then just moping about how unfair it is that there are some adverts on a site on the Internet. That is not going to help. If you truely want to have a list that shows people that are really cross about the new style then make a list for that. Don't make a list for people who are boycotting and then say it's a list to show people people who are annoyed, because thats not true, it is a list of people who are going to sit and do nothing, in other words, a boycott. - Kingpin13

Please read about the history and examples of boycotts on Wikipedia: Boycott. I don't think you understand what they are and why they work. --Fandyllic 00:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want Monobook to remain as default. -- Hindleyite 11:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I know what a Boycott is, and this Boycott is not going to work. BTW people, if you want Monobook to be defualt I suggest you ask, and keep asking, rather then doing a Boycott, but I guess it's stupid of me to try and stop you as it's doesn't seem to be making any diffrence. - Kingpin13

Can we have Monobook back? Can we have Monobook back? Can we have.... oh, and I always thought Geoff Boycott was a great player. -- Hindleyite 10:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is with these ads? I mean, ads are fine, but these things are in the worst places I could think of. If Wikia are that desperate to have us reading pointless ads, then well done, you've done it. Real good, sticking in almost in the middle of pages. Yay Wikia. --Ryan 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've said many times that it's not (from the impression I get) that Wikia want us to have to look at ads, it's that they need more money. If you can think of a better way for them to get money then adverts then go and say so. - Kingpin13 17:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not true: The statemtent that a for profit company cannot take donations is patently false and misleading. For profit companies can definitely take donations, it's just that the giver cannot take a tax write-off. Please stop perpetuating this falsehood. --Fandyllic 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind ads. But the placement of those ads is what worries me. The 700 something pixels static width is just so the banner ad wouldn't look too alone if the content area is wider. Oh and, 300 pixels of that go to the OTHER massive ad. Leaves 400 sad pixels to work with. Not good.

Why can't Wikia just have one, solid, always-there banner ad at the top of each page and no random-generated bull honkey? --Sysrq868 09:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the companys they've spoken to have said they would buy (for, presumably, a larger sum of money then the companys saying they'd be happy with a banner) a box in the right hand corner and inside the article - Kingpin13

Mm-hm, like the AdSense ones there now? And if people start boycotts over these ads (which should be on its own very concerning), I fail to see how two people clicking on a million dollar ad would make more money than a million people clicking on a 2 dollar ad. "Always sell more for less than less for more." --Sysrq868 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what your saying but it's not the ad that changes how much Wikia get, it's the people that are paying of the ad to be there - Kingpin13 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

People don't click on impression ads, they generate revenue simply by showing up on the page. However if you put impression ads in places like the header, sidebars, or footers, the advertisers won't buy them, and the ads are about as useless as the click ones. It's kinda shortened, but that's the gist of the issue in the simplest terms. And as for the AdSense ads, those likely aren't the ads, I don't remember if AdSense was a real CpI ad provider, it's likely that Wikia will find the ad providers after they have shown them that their sites actually have a consistent style and a good ad location for companies to buy. ~NOTASTAFFDaniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire)(talk)(tricks)(current topic)Jul 2, 2008 @ 17:39 (UTC)

A boycott we not need here. We -the logged in users- are only 1% or less, and the 99% of visitors got Monaco style as default. If you does nothing, the month will ends and you stays at the same point. Better, all the users write comments to the Forum, why the style is wrong. As more users and wiki-admins tells this, as faster Wikia would thinking about some changes. For me, I have no time for changing any of the content for now, because I need a lot more time to fixup the new CSS style, bug reports to Wikia and lot of time for testing the new style on various browses. That's not a boycott, but users will seen no changes from me in this time... -- HenryNe 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Last comments before the boycott

Okay, only a couple days before my boycott starts. I still haven't seen any good reason not to continue except simple statements like "a boycott doesn't help anyone." Also, Wikia hasn't done much to make Wikia's New Style more accurate or truthful. --Fandyllic 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to join (at least not as an official member), but I have two questions:

It would have been nice if you had answered my week old questions. Elassint, 07 6 2008 talk

People have given valid reasons. But plain and simply, you're hanging on the ideal that everyone is going to follow you. Because of that this is just plain going to fail. Boycotts only work when nearly everyone participates and it damages the company. The Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki has been on Monaco (With Ads, and multiple of them at that), and it's still got as many editors and readers as ever (Actually, believe it or not, but that sidebar on the Main Page inside the content introduced because of the ad has actually made the Main Page far nicer and more navigable.) But the fact of the matter is that there are still so many users editing and willing to edit that it's not going to harm Wikia. And in the meantime while you are away, the editors that are still here are going to continue talking with Wikia about improvements. Yes, things have been listened to, Wikia's even experimenting with removing ads for logged in users right now. It's when people repeat the same things over and over, and don't consider the reasons for the actions that things get ignored. It's a fact that the Ad placement is something that can't be easily negotiated because of the very reason that it is being introduced, people have commented about different placements but those just don't work because they don't get bought.

Actually, the fact that this page is here shows how open Wikia is. If you put something like this in the forum for nearly any company, they would promptly delete it and pretend it never existed. Wikia does have Oversight which can delete entire pages without trace, however this page still exists without any revision removed.

In fact Kingpin13 gave a valid rebutal to you, and you responded saying nothing but that he didn't know about what a Boycott was. Conversely you seem to be misunderstanding what a Boycott is. You even said that a Boycott wouldn't hurt Wikia, and that's the whole point of a Boycott, hurting the company so they change. Not to mention Boycotts don't use 1month time limits, they stand until things change. ~NOTASTAFFDaniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire)(talk)(tricks)(current topic)Jul 2, 2008 @ 17:39 (UTC)

A completely different issue with the New Style

Uncyclopedia is apparently exempt from the New Style. They're still sporting Monobook because they parody Wikipedia. Illogicopedia (wiki I helped found where I am opped) also parodies Wikipedia - because our site is partially a parody of Wikipedia we want our site to reflect the current look and feel of Wikipedia. This "New Style" undoes that. We don't care about ad space - we care about making fun of Wikipedia. --NERD42EMAILTALKH2G2PEDIAUNCYC 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)</small>

Sorry Nerd, but one of the reasons Illogicopedia was accepted (and you'll recall it took a while) is that it specifically did not parody Wikipedia. We don't accept duplicate wikis, and if Illogicapedia had been requested as a Wikipedia parody, it would have been rejected as a duplicate of Uncyclopedia. -- sannse (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a miscommunication took place then. The difference is in the type of parody we are, (they're funny, we're nonsensical) not in that we aren't a parody. Based on previous discussions, I expect the community will decide to move to another host or go independent. --NERD42EMAILTALKH2G2PEDIAUNCYC 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is no more a parady of Wikipedia than illogicopedia is, uncyc's main goal is humour, ?pedia's is randomness, imitating the Wikipedia style simply adds to the effect of the site. Using the monaco skin detracts from this effect, making the site feel more out of context, the monobook skin is part of the look and feel of this kind of site. --Testostereich 22:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nerd, yer sig's mental. Also, of course Illogicopedia is a parody of Wikipedia! Why do you think we went to great pains to try and make it look so? The skin is a very important part in creating a familiarity with Wikipedia and Monaco just blows that out the window. Anyhow, none of this may matter pretty soon. -- Hindleyite 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't approve of using the word parody, then how about this: Illogicopedia and Uncyclopedia both imitate the general style of Wikipedia for intentional effect, if for different ends. --The Divine Fluffalizer 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am wiki-adict... I just can stop duruing a whole month, i am sorry. anyway, I support you guys, you are totally rightApollo of Parnassus 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Post boycott comments

Don't know how many of you actually went through with it, but I did. I didn't even comment on talk pages. It may have not had any direct effect, but Wikia did make some positive changes since the end of June '08. On WoWWiki, ads don't appear at all for logged in users. This actually goes beyond what I was expecting, so I must give Wikia credit. If they had decided to do that at the beginning, I think much of the controversy would have been reduced. I'd like to hear any other comments about how you think things turned out. --Fandyllic 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the boycott that made them do this. If you were actually paying attention to Forum:Wikia's New Style you would know that ads are disabled for all logged in users, on pages other than the main page, and that you can view pages like an anon would (with ads) by enabling it via preferences. It was because Wikia was listening to suggestions to people who edited. However, calling this a boycott is a big mistake. Read Dantman's comments above. You are all foolish mortals. MarioGalaxy2433g5 10+ {talk/contribs/Logs} 00:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I went through with it, and I really don't care if the term boycott was incorrect. The Lord of the Rings Wiki dried up while I was away and you know what, I have little interest in returning. But the thing is I don't think the wikia staff care that much, they seem to have ignored the fact that many of their regular editors were angered at the changes, and concentrated only on making more money; the irony is that activity on a lot of wikis here have decreased and they're probably getting the same amount as income as before - so it was a poor move on wikia's part.-- KingAragorn talk LOTR email 13:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As Mario said, logged in users can now disable the ads. And, as Mario (and Aragorn) said, this boycott didn't actually help. Not that I want to keep this going, sure, maybe I think some of you did things that I don't personally agree with. But ultimately, I'm glad that Wikia have come up with something that everybody seems to be happy with. - w:c:Starwars:User:Kingpin13 10:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)